NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

originally posted by: jrod

What am I believing that is a lie? Do you seriously believe that human activity has NOT caused, and continues to cause many great problems on this planet, especially in regards to our environment.

Yes.

Why are you so damn sure you have NOT bought into the lie?

I have eyes. I don't use them just to read political propaganda.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: jrod

Asking if human activity has caused harm to the planet is NOT the same thing as asking if humans have caused the warming. They are completely separate questions.

I authored a post on how man has destroyed his habitat and what can be done to reverse it. That post was a transcript of testimony to congress by LEADING climate scientists. All of them authored part of the IPCC reports and contributed to the US' own climate policy. All of them downplayed man's contribution to warming, even one who was one of the fathers of the current AGW fear environment.

What he said precisely was: "Do you seriously believe that human activity has NOT caused, and continues to cause many great problems on this planet, especially in regards to our environment. " I am disagreeing specifically with his use of the highly subjective "many" and "great", as if they were objective measurements, in order to provoke an emotional response. Fear is never a good motivator against objective measurement.

Again, I have never, not once, claimed the earth is not warming. I just disagree with man's contribution.

Exactly. It's more complex than to merely state "It's gettin' hotter these days, ain't it, Vern? Man musta done that ('cause nature is dumb, and can't), we'd best fix it afore it gets outta hand." One must first identify the correct causes before he can formulate a proper response.

The response of "we can fix it" might not be the proper one at all, and it could well get us all killed. All that, because folks want to run around waving their hands in the air in a panic, and insist that everyone else panic with them.

a reply to: nenothtu

So you are telling me that you are 100% sure that human impact on this planet is not significant?

The Dunning-Kruger effect explains why you are so sure of your position. You are so sure that I have bought into a lie, yet are unable to see how foolish and inept your position on the issue truly. is.

My position is subject to change based on evidence, unlike most I do not blindly accept something as being true.

a reply to: raymundoko

You already linked to a paper? Why not link it again. I frequent these threads so I forget a lot of the garbage that is posted.

My best guess is you found a Heartland Institute 'study' and think that some how debunks what all the other science people are telling the world.

a reply to: jrod

Do you mind showing me where I have ever used such a type of paper? Your arguments become more hilarious in each thread. I've linked, Duke, Nature, Science, Phys.org etc. Don't come at me with that weak ish bro.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nenothtu

So you are telling me that you are 100% sure that human impact on this planet is not significant?

Are we discussing "human impact", or are we discussing climate change? Or are we attempting to change the argument now? it gets so damned hard to follow these evasive twists and turns some times.

The Dunning-Kruger effect explains why you are so sure of your position. You are so sure that I have bought into a lie, yet are unable to see how foolish and inept your position on the issue truly. is.

One of us is, without a doubt. You seem to be rather sure of your own position as well. Hmmm.

My position is subject to change based on evidence, unlike most I do not blindly accept something as being true.

Is that likely to happen any time soon, or is it just another attempt at evasion? Or maybe an attempt at a veiled left-handed dig? The evidence is there. I find it difficult to believe that you've entirely missed it. A couple hours search ought to have you convinced. Have at it. If you can say the same thing this time tomorrow after a sincere search, it will make your claim here of being open minded less than believable.

a reply to: nenothtu

Human impact is changing the climate. It is futile to reason with those who use Alice in Wonderland logic.

How can you honestly say the 40% rise of CO2 over past half century, as a direct result of human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels, is NOT significant to our planets atmosphere's chemistry and ultimately climate?

Are we discussing "human impact", or are we discussing climate change? Or are we attempting to change the argument now? it gets so damned hard to follow these evasive twists and turns some times.

This is exactly what you are doing, then turn it around an blame. I posted because you completely avoided the C12/C14 issue, and still have in this thread.

You guys are truly playing by the rules of disinformation.

I am done here, this thread has run it's course.

a reply to: jrod

Only that whole 40% isn't all from humans, as I have linked to in scientifically peer reviewed papers. Get off that horse. I see you have reverted back to the "40% FACT" argument.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: nenothtu

Human impact is changing the climate. It is futile to reason with those who use Alice in Wonderland logic.

I've noticed that.

How can you honestly say the 40% rise of CO2 over past half century, as a direct result of human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels, is NOT significant to our planets atmosphere's chemistry and ultimately climate?

Because that's BS. Not supported by the data, among other reasons. Because I know just how LOW CO2 concentrations actually are, when compared to normal for the planet. Because I know the history of the variability of CO2 levels, even long before man. Imagine that. Because that particular sentence, the way you have constructed it, is a complete fantasy. I don't do fantasy very well.

This is exactly what you are doing, then turn it around an blame. I posted because you completely avoided the C12/C14 issue, and still have in this thread.

What C12/C14 issue? I've only been responding to you, and this is the first you've brought it up to me.

You guys are truly playing by the rules of disinformation.

I knew that was eventually coming. It always does, this accusation of shillery, when they realize their argument won't float. It's nothing more than a ad hominem attack, against the arguer, because they can't assail the argument itself.

I am done here, this thread has run it's course.

Bye then. Have a nice day!

originally posted by: nenothtu

What C12/C14 issue? I've only been responding to you, and this is the first you've brought it up to me.

My bad, that was a different thread. I post in most of the climate threads and got mixed up.

Some(95%+ of the scientists) consider the trend in the C12/C14 ratio more or less a smoking gun that shows the excess CO2 is indeed from burning fossil fuels.

I did not accuse you of being a shill, if anything it was more an accusation of dishonest debate tactics. But if that is what you want to believe, that I think you are a shill then that is on you mate.

The reality is, you refuse to even admit that you might have it wrong and climate change is a serious issue that we need to address. In other words, you arrogantly assume you are right, and I have bought into a lie without even considering that it is you who bought into a lie, Dunning-Kruger effect.

Since you have not brought any science or facts to this discussion, I think we can safely assume you are not a scientist and you have not studied this topic, yet you remain convinced that you are right and 97% of the worlds scientists who study this got it wrong. You greatly overestimate your skill in assessing the climate change problem, the Dunning-Kruger effect.

a reply to: raymundoko

No you haven't.

Where is the link?

Writing fact in your statement does not make it so, if fact it is one of the declarative statements that makes me instantly suspicious.

"Proof" of the 40%+ increase of CO2:

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

a reply to: jrod

The papers are in this thread. Proof you haven't even looked at the science behind the 40% numbers. Nobody argued the 40% wasn't the increase. I think it would behoove you to re-read this thread so you stop looking foolish.

Going back in history tens of thousands of years ago, when the Sahara was a green and pleasant land, full of four hoofed fauna and lakes with fish, woodland, plenty of rain fall, really nice, then, over time, the Sahara turned into what it is to-day, some say that is where the Egyptians came from.
So, tens of thousands of years ago, 'climate change' happened, No coal fired power stations, no SUV's, no jet aircraft, not that many people about, so was it a cyclical happening? some other unknown force? jet stream?
Seems to me, with or without humans, climate change happens, I just hope its finally settled in the next ten years, that's about all I have left, according to family history.

a reply to: pikestaff

So, tens of thousands of years ago, 'climate change' happened, No coal fired power stations, no SUV's, no jet aircraft, not that many people about, so was it a cyclical happening? some other unknown force? jet stream?

Yes, it can be cyclical. That does not mean the human activity cannot disrupt natural processes.

The jet streams do not govern climate, they are governed by climate.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Seems to me, with or without humans, climate change happens, I just hope its finally settled in the next ten years, that's about all I have left, according to family history.

Exactly. And I hope no-one in this thread is suggesting otherwise.

But just because climate can change without human influence, does not mean humans cannot influence climate change, any more than saying that because people died before we invented guns means guns do not kill people.

The point is that in addition to all the various natural factors that cause warming and cooling, human activity has introduced additional factors, that also cause warming (and, indeed, cooling). And the net result is more warming than would otherwise occur.

That - and only that - is the scientific consensus.

(Of course, human activity affects precipitation pattern as well, a potentially more serious issue than global warming ... )

a reply to: raymundoko

If the 40%+ rise of CO2 is not from human activity, then where is it coming from?

Where is the CO2 coming from?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: raymundoko

If the 40%+ rise of CO2 is not from human activity, then where is it coming from?

Where is the CO2 coming from?

Where did the rise in CO2 come from all of the other times it happened?

Aside from Man's contribution to CO2, in nature, higher temperature increases the concentration of all gases, by increasing the rates of reaction of almost every chemical reaction.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

When in the past has a species burnt billions of tons of fossil fuels?

Higher temperatures increase concentration of all gasses? I think you need remedial science.

a reply to: jrod

All of the oxygen in the atmosphere is from biological reactions, the oxygen caused an extinction event and turned rocks red for millions of years.

Since biology can make over 25% of the atmosphere, it is no stretch to think it could make .04% of the atmosphere.

You must have an investment in the Global Nanny State.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

So instead adding to the discussion, you just resort to immature attempts at ridicule?

Nothing you wrote there is relevant to what is happening today. This rise of CO2 is an anomaly in terms of the history of the Earth's atmosphere.